John, I was just wondering how the table comparison was going. I know you're going to start checking out idlers and must have a lot on your plate.

I just want to say that the threads that you and b50 start, provide a great deal of useful info for the vast majority of vinyl fans and newbies. Besides that, they make a fun and interesting read. Thanks

In terms of rythm, slam, plasticity and three-dimensionality the EMT 930 remained king. The Raven had no chance. In terms of delicacy, air and detail the Raven won the battle, we all agreed on that. You see? It all depends what your priorities are, but be aware of the tradeoffs.

The emt930 was down in every terms of comparaison.Regarding depht, slam and space, the raven is top.All depend on the system.In the low imaging and dynamic system, the emt can won.

You said, "In terms of rythm, slam, plasticity and three-dimensionality the EMT 930 remained king. The Raven had no chance. In terms of delicacy, air and detail the Raven won the battle, we all agreed on that. You see? It all depends what your priorities are, but be aware of the tradeoffs."

Why do you think this result happened? Why do you believe there must be tradeoffs?

"The emt930 was down in every terms of comparaison.Regarding depht, slam and space, the raven is top.All depend on the system.In the low imaging and dynamic system, the emt can won."

Is it not possible to "listen through" a given system, so that the turntable can be heard for its ability?

mosin wrote: You said, "In terms of rythm, slam, plasticity and three-dimensionality the EMT 930 remained king. The Raven had no chance. In terms of delicacy, air and detail the Raven won the battle, we all agreed on that. You see? It all depends what your priorities are, but be aware of the tradeoffs."

Why do you think this result happened? Why do you believe there must be tradeoffs?

Mosin, I do not have a full explanation of the “why”, but I’m convinced the combination of stronger motors (compared to belt driven tts) and lack of elasticity (no belt) plays a role here. I’m also convinced that you have drawn your own conclusions, as your decision to build idler-wheel turntables must be based on a thorough technical analysis of the issues involved here. I would look forward to read them here.

Regarding the "tradeoff", in my view one can indeed push in both directions: push for more detail and finesse with idlers, as I did with my EMT, or push for more punch and dynamics with belts, as did Thomas Woschnik with the Raven. However, pushing the envelope is one thing, reaching the ultimate on both fronts is another. One needs to settle with a compromise, a top-quality compromise, but still a compromise.

Salut b_gasik, nice to see that we had somewhat different perceptions from the battle, at least in some respect. I hope you allow me to stick to my own conclusions. And hey, it is important that both of us remain satisfied with what we have. The Raven remains a top belt drive, no doubt.. but, in all honesty, let me add the following and share it with our friends here: I had the Raven on my very short list for a second turntable and was about to order one! I had listened to the Raven once at your place, then again at the manufacturer’s house in Germany, but I wanted to hear it one more time before ordering it. This is why I came up with the idea of doing this comparison under as strict conditions as possible, and I’m glad you accepted the challenge. But, honestly, after the comparison I simply lost interest in the Raven. Why? Because the differences in terms of detail and finesse were not as big as I had expected. The only other turntable that would have made it to the top of my shortlist for a turntable with detail and finesse would have been your big Thorens with the Schroeder arm – but there we didn’t compare. Apples and oranges, Yin and Yang: in my view, if one doesn't seek both then there is no need for two turntables (unless one is a collector, which I'm not).

In any case, I’m glad we did this comparison, it was great fun and I also realise not many of us have a chance to experience something special like this.

I respectfully disagree this time because I have heard turntables that offer a level of performance which leaves them indistinguishable as far as to the drive type. In an A-B test with those, I do not believe the listener could conclude what drive type was in use. So, it may surprise you that I believe it is possible to meet all the goals with either a belt or idler. The design challenges are quite different with each, however. Personally, I prefer to work with idler mechanisms because I am more comfortable with the particular set of challenges associated with idlers. Still, I reserve all options to think outside the box.

To ...

I believe I may have stated the question wrong. I will be considering how to state it better, but the points you address do not really go to my intention in the post.

Awesome stuff. But i have a really stoopid newbie question. All those arms, and no TypeV? Or is that showing my ignorance?I wonder if the combinations have more to do with the differences than any specific difference.I have spent 30 years searching for the elusive perfection in sound, and am constantly amazed with systems that should suck, yet perform exquisitely. I can only conclude that it is the combination of all the parts (including the room and the mood) as a whole that count.

mosin wrote: I respectfully disagree this time because I have heard turntables that offer a level of performance which leaves them indistinguishable as far as to the drive type.

Your observations mosin are both interesting and challenging, and I respect them. Let us take note that our respective ‘conclusions’ are based on different comparisons and experiences. I would go as far as to admit that a certain amount of preconception, based on personal listening experiences over the years, may have played a role, for all of us who were involved. My experiences so far with belts (Kuzma, VPI, Thorens, Linn), idlers (essentially Garrard 301s and EMT 930s) and belt-idler combinations (Thorens 124) however do point in the direction I spelled out above.

I would be interested to know what equipment (turntable + arm + cart combos) you compared to come to your conclusions.

mosin wrote: In an A-B test with those, I do not believe the listener could conclude what drive type was in use.

Our A-B comparison was not a blind test but it was clearly audible. I am convinced that b_gasik, myself and the third person present at the event would be able to quickly recognise which drive was used, also in a blind test. Well, certainly now, because the ‘open eyes’ test is already behind us and we know what to expect.

mosin wrote: So, it may surprise you that I believe it is possible to meet all the goals with either a belt or idler.

Yes am a bit surprised but this is interesting. Does this mean that you don’t think there is a need to find compromises in some areas? That would surprise me even more. Anyhow, it would also be interesting to hear other idler wheel equipment makers on this one.. for idlers Loricraft and VPI (the latter only to some extent) would come to mind. If any of you have contacts with them please explore this further.

Startewiz I have nothing against SMEs, b_gasik may have his views on this one. I do however fully agree with him on the qualities of FR64 and FR66 tonearms. By the way, he must have already irked the Garrard aficionados in here with his Lenco discovery.

the Koetsu Black was not a normal version, as b_gasik could explain in more detail.

On the question of listening through a system, most ‘neutral’ A-B comparisons can probably be achieved with headpohones, not with speakers in a room. Both Lukaschek and Van den Hul develop their respective Benz and VdH cartridges listening to headphones.